"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

We don't need to participate in forming a one world government, or in leading such government, or even just being in it. With such government, we cede power and sovereignty. We don't need to continue to expand our influence to all parts of the globe. We don't need the new world order. We don't need McCain's new global order.

What we do need are secure borders and immigration control. We need security for the states against foreign trespasses. We need to return to the states much of the decision-making and responsibility of government that has been usurped by power hungry politicians. Unfortunately, much of this predicament has come from a populace that cannot see the U.S. in terms of limited government.

I fear that it is a lost cause to try to stop this disaster from escalating.

I fear that it is a lost cause to try to stop this disaster from escalating.

Unfortunately you are correct. We have already handed ourselves over to our banks, which own everything, the country, the UN, the CIA, all of it privately owned. Good Game USA.

People still think democracy, when that wasnt even the intention, democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. We were a constitutional republic, but not anymore because of the illusion brought over us.

It's our very own real life matrix, and we cant wait to get in line to get the RFID chips in us!

“I strongly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court.’

“As President I will terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations and I would bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory.’

“American troops must serve only under American commanders, and as long as I am President American forces will never serve under the flag of the United Nations or any foreign country.”

If you are referring to Chuck Baldwin being elected president, then obviously he will not win. As a candidate, he has to speak in terms of "when I am president". If he didn't speak in those terms, he would be better off not running and instead supporting somebody else.

When Barack Obama is an absolute no, and John McCain is one who is only better than Obama possibly as a lesser of evils, I cannot support either one. I will vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all.

When Barack Obama is an absolute no, and John McCain is one who is only better than Obama possibly as a lesser of evils, I cannot support either one. I will vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all.

McCain should have run as a Democrat. He might even pick Lieberman to be his running mate. McCain crossed the aisle so much, it would have been better had he stayed on the other side. I can't think of any Democrat that I have ever given my vote. I am not going to start with one who isn't man enough to call himself what he is... a Democrat. He and Hillary have been so lip-locked, he could even name her to be his running mate.

McCain should have run as a Democrat. He might even pick Lieberman to be his running mate. McCain crossed the aisle so much, it would have been better had he stayed on the other side. I can't think of any Democrat that I have ever given my vote. I am not going to start with one who isn't man enough to call himself what he is... a Democrat. He and Hillary have been so lip-locked, he could even name her to be his running mate.

I'm not a fan of McCain either, but you'd rather give your vote to a no chance of winning 3rd party candidate than the electable candidate that's closest to your views? Better to have a liberal Republican in the White House than a man who would gladly redistribute the nation's wealth and cave to foreign powers and tell you it's a good idea while doing it.

McCain should have run as a Democrat. He might even pick Lieberman to be his running mate. McCain crossed the aisle so much, it would have been better had he stayed on the other side. I can't think of any Democrat that I have ever given my vote. I am not going to start with one who isn't man enough to call himself what he is... a Democrat. He and Hillary have been so lip-locked, he could even name her to be his running mate.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about giving your de facto vote to Obama.

John McCain is a Republican. His voting record is solidly Republican on issues from abortion to spending, taxes, the war, judges, etc...

I'm not a fan of McCain either, but you'd rather give your vote to a no chance of winning 3rd party candidate than the electable candidate that's closest to your views? Better to have a liberal Republican in the White House than a man who would gladly redistribute the nation's wealth and cave to foreign powers and tell you it's a good idea while doing it.

There are arguments that would contradict your assertion of what would be better. And if McCain were president, I would oppose him in much, just as an Obama presidency, I would oppose him in much. If McCain were president, it would be much more difficult for the party to return to it's roots. If he is defeated, then the party will fix it's problems, or decline further. I am not pleased with the Republicans in congress (led by frikkin McCain) in their lack of resolve to do the job we sent them to do. They have had too little effort in amending the Constitution to eliminate convenience abortions, despite the party platform that for so long drew us in with such a promise. They squandered their power. I hope they will not have it back under such circumstances. I tend to believe they did this purposely because if the abortion issue were resolved, then that would be one great issue that would no longer draw people to their party. They have effectively proven their strategy by their inaction.

Of course, Supreme Court justices can make a difference in overturning Roe vs. Wade, but that is not at all the goal. It would be better than the status quo, but that would just leave it to the states to decide whether babies are life. The Constitution guarantees them the right to life. This is a national issue, not an issue of states rights.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about giving your de facto vote to Obama.

John McCain is a Republican. His voting record is solidly Republican on issues from abortion to spending, taxes, the war, judges, etc...

You should just cut out the middle man and vote Obama.

You're an ass. We have gone over this before. My vote is in no way for Obama, other than it doesn't seem to matter a great deal whether Obama wins or McCain wins. Either way, it is a losing situation. My vote was never intended for a Republican in this cycle. They lost me after their weak performance in 2006. They were led down that path by McCain. He is the problem. He is not the solution. And his global plan may very well be worse than one that might be held by Obama.

Perhaps you would outline the comparison between McCain and Obama for their world plan.

I do not support increasing the federal government whether it is for domestic feel-good programs, or for military projects that do not focus on national defense. Perhaps the war on terror has lost sight of this. Maybe Obama goes for more domestic government where McCain favors more global influence. Either way, it is going the wrong direction. It's time to take it back from these power elites. Voting for either of them will not help.

Voting for a third party will strengthen that third party, and perhaps be good for all third parties. This two party system is badly broken. It should be scrapped by the voters making it happen.

PARIS (Reuters) - President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged on Monday to "protect" European Union citizens during France's six-month tenure of the EU presidency in a bid to make the bloc more relevant to everyday life, but offered few new measures.

Sarkozy's plan to make the next six months a model of European effectiveness was dealt a blow by Irish voters' rejection of a treaty to overhaul the bloc's institutions, holding up the pact which was supposed to take effect on January 1.

In a one-hour live televised interview on the eve of taking over the presidency, Sarkozy said he would seek to address voters' concerns by pushing for tax breaks on products ranging from petrol to green goods and restaurants with table service.

"Things are not going well. Things are not going well at all," Sarkozy told France 3 television.

"Europe worries people and, worse than that, I find, little by little our fellow citizens are asking themselves if after all the national level isn't better equipped to protect them than the European level," he said, adding that was not the case.

Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty earlier this month for reasons ranging from the fact the text is incomprehensible to concerns it would bring higher taxes or legalised abortion.

"We have to think about how we can make this Europe a means to protect Europeans in their daily lives ... We must not be afraid of this word -- 'protection'," he said, adding that citizens wanted to be shielded from the risks of globalisation.

Sarkozy lobbied unsuccessfully at a summit of European leaders this month for a cap on value added tax (VAT) on petrol to cushion the blow of soaring oil prices that have sparked protests across the 27-nation bloc and elsewhere.

ANOTHER IRISH VOTE?

Sarkozy and the EU executive, the European Commission, are due to present a report on the options available to tackle record oil prices at the next summit in October.

The French president said he would also push for VAT to be lowered to 5.5 percent on energy-efficient house building and, in a bid to help small businesses, continue a drive to bring the VAT rate charged in restaurants to the same level.

Oil prices were also to blame, he said, for the high rate of inflation, which is running at a record 4 percent in the euro zone and has prompted the European Central Bank (ECB) to signal that it is prepared to raise interest rates on July 3.

In a renewed swipe at the ECB, Sarkozy said raising rates would do nothing to tackle the price of oil and the central bank should seek to preserve growth as well.

"You can double, triple interest rates and that will not bring a decrease in the price of a barrel of Brent," he said.

EU leaders meeting in October are due to hear from Ireland's prime minister on how to move forward after the "No" vote.

Officials say the only plan in the works is to make the Irish vote again but politicians have avoided saying so in public. Sarkozy will travel to Dublin on July 11 for talks.

Asked if they should vote again, he said: "I don't want to say it like that because it would give the impression of forcing their hand."

He did, however, suggest that the problem might still be solved in time for the European elections in June 2009.

"I will see with them what it is appropriate to do. We must take our time, but we have to know under which regime we will organise the 2009 European elections," he said.